Wednesday, June 27, 2012

An Evolutionist Just Made An Incredible Blunder In a Sodium Channel Evolution Paper As Evolutionists Continue To Drink Their Own Bathwater

You won’t believe Harold Zakon’s fallacy in the very first sentence of his new PNAS paper on sodium channel evolution. The University of Texas evolutionist writes:

Multicellular animals evolved >650 million years ago (1).

And what is Zakon’s reference for this rather remarkable claim? It is a 2009 Naturepaper on fossilized steroids indicating ancient multicellular life. Amazingly, Zakon conflates existence with evolution. In other words, whatever appears in the fossil record must have evolved.

And who allowed this colossal, non scientific, blunder into print? None other than John Avise who just happens to believe that it would be blasphemous to ascribe harmful and inefficient genomic designs to God.

In a massive exercise of drinking their own bathwater, evolutionists peer-review and edit papers written by other evolutionists and the result is, quite literally, garbage out.

98 comments:

We know that you personally don't think that life evolved without divine guidance, but even here you seem to accept that the Nature paper is evidence that multicellular life existed 650 years ago.

And if what you are disputing is the idea that life, by whatever mechanism, reflects bifurcating lineages, then you are simply querying an equivalent degree of confidence that led Galileo to conclude that the Copernican model was correct.

"Evolution" in the sense of adaptation down lineages over time, or evolution in the sense of adaptation by means of Darwinian mechanisms?

I'm not sure which you dispute. ID is perfectly compatible with the former, and Behe, for example, accepts common descent.

Whatever you think of Darwinian mechanisms, and however much intervention you think some ID must have made in adaptation, the idea that extant living forms descended from rather different ancestral forms is simply not in dispute in evolutionary biology, any more than a spherical earth or the solar system is disputed.

the idea that extant living forms descended from rather different ancestral forms is simply not in dispute in evolutionary biology

The idea that a Corvette descended from a rather different vehicle (a horse carriage) is not in dispute either. Is the lineage ancestral? I don't think so. There is evolution and then there is evolution. Which one is it? That is the question.

Wake up, Liddle, and stop talking down to people. You evolutionists aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

Elizabeth - it doesn't matter if evolution is compatible with ID or not. Papers should back up claims with facts or citations. If they are going to claim that X evolved, they should either cite a paper for it or give evidence. Instead, they cite a paper showing that X *existed*. It might be 1000% true that it evolved. However, the point is that claims should be backed by evidence, and, even if the claim is compatible with Intelligent Design doesn't mean that there is evidence for the claim. That's not difficult, just basic logic. The author of the paper failed basic logic by using evidence for existence to imply evidence of evolution. They are not the same thing.

It's not that we need a citation for "evolution", but that none was provided for the statement! The paper states, quite simply, "Multicellular animals evolved >650 million years ago". How does the author know that they evolved from anything?

Let's put it another way. Let's pretend that the author had instead said, "Multicellular animals were directly created by God ex nihilo >650 million years ago" and had cited the same paper for the fact. Would that had been appropriate? Of course not! The paper provided evidence simply of existence, not of mode of origin. Both statements are equally supported by said paper, which is another way of saying that neither statement finds direct support in the cited paper.

It's not that we need a citation for "evolution", but that none was provided for the statement! The paper states, quite simply, "Multicellular animals evolved >650 million years ago". How does the author know that they evolved from anything?

Let's put it another way. Let's pretend that the author had instead said, "Multicellular animals were directly created by God ex nihilo >650 million years ago" and had cited the same paper for the fact. Would that had been appropriate? Of course not! The paper provided evidence simply of existence, not of mode of origin. Both statements are equally supported by said paper, which is another way of saying that neither statement finds direct support in the cited paper.

Crevo, you are completely misunderstanding the situation. The paper is cited to support the date (650 MYA) for the earliest known multi-cellular organisms, not that the organisms evolved. That life forms evolve over time is supported by literally millions of other studies over the last 100+ years. Facts that are that well established are not cited in each new paper, otherwise every new article would be 10,000 pages long.

I agree with Thorton (surprise) that lifeforms evolved. The evidence for this is as solid as it can be. IDers do not and should not dispute this.

What is in question is the manner of the evolution, i.e., how did it happen? Did it happen by itself in minute Darwinian steps that eventually produced all the known species? Or did it happen via design intervention over millions of years?

Evolutionists love to point to evidence for evolution (and adaptation) for the correctness of their position that living organisms evolved all by themselves but this is dishonest. Modern vehicles evolve too but the evolutionary process is obviously not Darwinian.

Evolutionists have not provided evidence for Darwinian evolution. In fact, the evidence squarely contradicts it. The fossil record does not show a smooth gradation over time but leaps.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that there are two main types of evolution: Darwinian evolution and design evolution. I think Hunter would do well to specify which one he refers to in his articles. This would prevent many misconceptions and useless argumentation.

No one disputes that life forms evolve over time. The question is, is the form in the fossil record the beginning of that evolution or the product of it?

I have read many biochem books which continually state "X evolved" (referring to a system under study) without any supporting statements whatsoever. The content of the textbooks would not have been altered even a small amount if nearly every occurrence of "X evolved" was replaced with "X was created". In other words, "X evolved" is doing no scientific work, and is only there in support of a metaphysical view of its origin.

It may have evolved from something else, but there is rarely any evidence for it, and nearly never any evidence cited.

Cornelius does. Tedford does. Batspit77 does. Every Creationist who posts here does. It's the main theme of this blog.

In other words, "X evolved" is doing no scientific work, and is only there in support of a metaphysical view of its origin.

No, "X evolved" is providing the extremely well supported explanatory framework for the new concepts being presented.

It may have evolved from something else, but there is rarely any evidence for it, and nearly never any evidence cited.

There are over a hundred years and millions of articles worth of evidence for evolution. Most are no longer cited because citing known facts is superfluous. No papers on new aircraft design ever cite works proving gravity exists either.

Science builds on previous knowledge. There is no need to "reinvent the wheel" with every paper.

Louis No one disputes that life forms evolve over time. The question is, is the form in the fossil record the beginning of that evolution or the product of it?

Yes, that is the (or a) question. But you are wrong that "no-one disputes that life forms evolve over time". The fascinating thing is that IDists and creationists have wildly different views on this, but rarely argue about it with each other! So in one thread, on an ID site, you will get various IDists scoffing at the daft things "evolutionists" say, even though some of them actually agree with the evolutionists on the point at issue. But they very very rarely thrash these things out among themselves, in my experience.

So that's interesting, Louis. Cornelius, do you agree with Louis? And, if so, how are you defining "evolution"?

But they very very rarely thrash these things out among themselves, in my experience.

Actually you quoted crevo in your post, not me. But that's OK because I agree with crevo. You're right that IDists and creationists rarely thrash these things out among themselves. You want to know why? It's because most of them are cowards, not unlike the Darwinists. They are afraid of being wrong and having to change their minds about their cherished assumptions. Or they are afraid of their peers, afraid of not belonging. It's the old tribal instinct. You can call it political correctness, if you wish. It's been around since the dawn of civilization.

Personally, I have no such fear. I am not a groupie in this regard. I can be just as hard on a creationist as on a Darwinist.

First of all, evolutionary change over time is granted by all parties I'm aware of. Some of them don't call it evolution since that term is often confused for Darwinism and prefer more metaphysically neutral terms such as adaptation.

As to citing, first of all, the original "evidence" for evolution was that there were different fossils in older rocks than there are in the present. The problem is that difference does not imply evolution. So the mechanism of natural selection was proposed, and was widely accepted even though it was never demonstrated. Now that has been falling apart (it actually *never* did the explaining it said, it's just that now the rest of the biological community is starting to realize that, too). So, again, we just have different fossils, but no way of linking them with evolutionary change except metaphysical assumptions (which is, and has always been, Cornelius' point). It may be true. It may not be true. The fact is convincing evidence of this has never been provided.

Thornton says that the word "evolved" actually *does* do scientific work. In this case, what work does it do? Does it imply a mechanism by which it became what it is? If it doesn't imply a mechanism, what, exactly, does it imply, that wouldn't also be implied if someone had said "Vishnu created" or "X spontaneously generated"? Since none of these imply a specific mechanism, all of them do the same amount of scientific work.

Louis -

Actually, the creationists do hash out the mechanisms by which things change, and how we can detect such things. One good read on the subject is Wood's "Understanding the Pattern of Life".

The reason the ID'ers don't usually hash out the specifics is because the ID theory is about prerequisites, not natural history. In other words, doing things like determining how much information it takes to evolve X feature of the organism. That doesn't imply a specific natural history, it simply gives the requirements that any proposed natural history must account for. Let's say, for example, you have a theory of star formation. Great! Then, let's say someone else goes and measures the temperature of the star. Also great! However, once the temperature of the star is measured, your theory of star formation needs to be tested against the actual temperature, to make sure that your theory can account for the given temperature. If it can't, you shouldn't complain about the person doing the temperature reading just because they don't have an alternate theory. They are simply pointing out the facts to which *any* theory of star formation must account.

In the case of ID, the measurements are mathematical and informational. The fact that ID doesn't propose a specific theory of origins is as irrelevant as whether the person measuring the temperature of the star has a specific theory of star formation. What they can tell is simply that theory X doesn't match feature-of-the-world Y.

As to citing, first of all, the original "evidence" for evolution was that there were different fossils in older rocks than there are in the present. The problem is that difference does not imply evolution.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the issue. It wasn't just "different fossils in older rocks". It was the distinct patterns of morphological change that could be tracked over time. A very distinct, branching over deep time phylogenetic tree is present in the fossils. THAT is what needs explaining.Then, when the science of genetics developed, it turned out that a very distinct branching over deep time phylogenetic tree is present in DNA that matches exactly the one found in the fossils. THAT is what needs explaining too.

So the mechanism of natural selection was proposed, and was widely accepted even though it was never demonstrated.

Oh please, spare us the standard Creationist denials. NS is incredibly well documented and demonstrated.

Now that has been falling apart (it actually *never* did the explaining it said, it's just that now the rest of the biological community is starting to realize that, too). So, again, we just have different fossils, but no way of linking them with evolutionary change except metaphysical assumptions (which is, and has always been, Cornelius' point). It may be true. It may not be true. The fact is convincing evidence of this has never been provided.

More Creationist wishful thinking. Sorry Crevo, plentiful evidence for evolution is still here and the ToE is not falling apart. You'll have to pick another fantasy.

Thornton says that the word "evolved" actually *does* do scientific work. In this case, what work does it do?

Once again, evolution provides the extremely well supported explanatory framework for the new concepts being presented.

Does it imply a mechanism by which it became what it is?

Yes it does. The mechanisms of evolution are well know and well documented.

In other words, doing things like determining how much information it takes to evolve X feature of the organism.

ID has never determined how much "information" it takes to evolve any feature, or shown why it's a problem for evolution.

In the case of ID, the measurements are mathematical and informational.

ID has never made measurements of any kind, either mathematical and informational. They can't even define "information" as it applies to biological entities, or give an objective way to measure it.

Sad fact is, ID is all hype and bluster to support a religious driven political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with science.

A hamburger with fresh bread on bad meat is a bad hamburger. By analogy, evolutionists insist on it being a good hamburger because of its buns. If the bad meat is questioned, evolutionists always refer back to how great the bread is.

Yet sponges, rather than just being an accident of Darwinism, give very strong indication of 'purpose':

,,,Interestingly, 'soft-bodied' Jellyfish and Sponges appeared suddenly in the fossil record before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish and Sponges are found, much like photosynthetic bacteria, to have essential purpose in preparing the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.

Marine animals cause a stir - July 2009 Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/edsumm/e090730-08.html

Sponges Determine Coral Reef's Nutrient Cycle Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050917085649.htm

Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in rocks dated from 635 to 580 million years ago. Moreover, sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as well as more organic matter than they consume (Wikipedia).

Moreover, despite what Darwinists automatically imply from the mere presence of chemical signatures for sponges, there is no actual empirical evidence that sponges, or anything else, ever evolved from single cell creatures to multicellular creatures:

There simply isn't any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than 'simple aggregates':

"We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they're still individual cells that aggregate together. They don't seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don't really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don't have anything like that." - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ

Nor is there experimental evidence to suggest that such a transition from single cell aggregates to multicellular organisms is possible:

More Darwinian Degradation - M. Behe - January 2012 Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2012/01/more-darwinian-degradation/

In fact Dr. Stephen Meyer's next book is going to be on the sheer impossibility of neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of 'Body-Plan information' from single cells to multicellular organisms in the Cambrian Explosion:

'Body Plan' information, which is required to 'build' cells into a coherent functional multicellular organism simply is not even understood to any sufficient degree:

An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html

The (Electric) Face of a Frog - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI

‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)

Here is a article that gives a very small glimpse at the extreme organizational complexity that goes into crafting different cells into one multicellular creature:

How many different cells are there in complex organisms? Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types. http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf

Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Information on The Surface of Cellshttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit

The mouse is not enough - February 2011Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/

Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale."http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/transcription-factors-more-species.html

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.'http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html

This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action:

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713

A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html

"Abstract: Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."

More Darwinian Degradation - M. Behe - January 2012Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2012/01/more-darwinian-degradation/

I guess loss is counted as gain in the neo-Darwinian worldview. But not in mine!

Here is what the proof for evolutionary transition from single cell aggregates to metazoan should look like:

Challenging Fossil of a Little FishWhat they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

Cornelius Hunter: An Evolutionist Just Made An Incredible Blunder In a Sodium Channel Evolution Paper As Evolutionists Continue To Drink Their Own Bathwater: And what is Zakon’s reference for this rather remarkable claim? It is a 2009 Nature paper on fossilized steroids indicating ancient multicellular life. Amazingly, Zakon conflates existence with evolution.

Zakon cited a paper that cited other papers that cited other papers all the way back to Darwin who cited still other papers. Darwin and other scientists have already established the basic outlines of evolutionary history. Love et al. placed a date on a specific event of that history. No one in the scientific community is going to be confused on the meaning of the citation.

Perhaps it would help if Zakon cited it like this: 1a) Love et al. 2009k, 1b) Darwin 1859.

Most biologists agree that all life shares a common ancestry, and that this has already been demonstrated. Even if they are wrong, that doesn't make the citation an incredible blunder as the paper isn't attempting to "re-prove the existence of the atom."

Evolution in general, and evolution of life and multicellularity in this case, have not been demonstrated. In fact, if you were to say anything about this, it would be quite the opposite. At this time there are substantial problems with the idea. Citing a paper that discussed biomarkers (and thus the *existence* of multicellular life) as justification for the claim that multicellular life evolved is not scientific.

"Evolution" in the sense of adaptation down lineages over time, or evolution in the sense of adaptation by means of Darwinian mechanisms?

I'm not sure which you dispute. ID is perfectly compatible with the former, and Behe, for example, accepts common descent.

Many aspects of "evolution" have been demonstrated. I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution of life" but certainly evolution has been demonstrated in living things, in real time. If you mean OOL, then of course not - OOL isn't the same as evolution.

As for multicellularity - if you mean by "has not been demonstrated" that we have not replicated it in the lab, true. But nor have we replicated Big Bang, but we regard it as well-demonstrated.

"Evolutionists" by your own definition, Cornelius doesn't mean the same as "biologists". In fact, it seems to mean something closer to "atheists".

But even supposing you meant that "even [biologists] (in their honest moments) admit they have only speculation" - there is a sense in which all science can be described as "speculation". We deal with models. At the early stage of the development of a model, it may best be described as a "speculation" - but as we a clear explanatory narrative, it develops into a "theory" from which we can derive testable "hypotheses" that tend to support the theory, or, alternatively, cause us to modify it.

Some aspects of the theory of how life got going and evolved (in the broadest sense - changed over time) are indeed speculative, and may always be, by which I mean, that our theories may prove impossible, practically to test. The trail may simply be cold.

But we have far more than simply "speculations" about evolution. We have clearly supported theories, and many confirmed hypotheses, not least being Darwin's originally posited mechanism: we know it works, because we have observed it working.

So to say that "evolutionists" "admit they have only speculation" is simply untrue. We have far more than speculation. It is also underhand to add your snide "in their honest moments". We are honest, Cornelius, all the time, including being honest enough to give the limits to our confidence in any claim (it's part of our methodology).

I ask you to consult your conscience to see whether the same is true of you.

CH said, "In other words, whatever appears in the fossil record must have evolved."

Whatever happened, evolution did it. They have bird beaks and such, so they know its a fact.

An observation I've made is that evolutionists have no metric or standard of judgment to say otherwise. There is no level of hypothetical biological complexity that could be defined for which evolutionists would say that it is beyond their mechanisms to achieve. There is nothing that can be defined as being biologically irreducibly complex.

When evolutionists have wandered out to make predictions they get shot down every single time. Of course, it does not falsify evolution, the blob gets bigger and the objective measures get turned into the fog and mush of empty rhetoric, adjectives that render precise definitions hopeless and useless, strawman arguments that deflect examination, and tautologies.

When evolutionists have wandered out to make predictions they get shot down every single time.

Are you daft? Just two days ago you referenced a blog by Theobald in which he said:

In fact, the assumption of a universal genetic code was instrumental in their success in solving the code. For instance, in 1957, nearly ten years before the genetic code was finally solved, Sydney Brenner published an influential paper in which he concluded that all overlapping triplet codes were impossible if the code was universal (Brenner 1957). This paper was widely considered a landmark work, since many researchers were leaning towards an overlapping code. Of course, it turned out that Brenner was correct about the nature of the true code.

Now if we can just clear up that nasty little contradiction for Darwinism ever actually experimentally demonstrating that material processes can generate ANY code whatsoever and the finding that there are multiple overlapping highly integrated codes in life.

"A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107."(The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.)

Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html

Programming of Life - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6iWX9nGocg&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SPAFDF33F11E2FB840

Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - David L Abel and Jack T Trevors:Excerpt: Genetic algorithms instruct sophisticated biological organization. Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC). FSC alone provides algorithmic instruction...No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization...It is only in researching the pre-RNA world that the problem of single-stranded metabolically functional sequencing of ribonucleotides (or their analogs) becomes acute.http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

Cornelius has admitted that 650 MYA we had multi-cellular animals in existence. I'd like one of geniuses to give to me a quick history of life from then to the present. Let's start with the fossil record. Anyone want to offer an explanation for the spatial and temporal patterns of the fossils that we empirically observe?

Did the magic Designer come by every few centuries over the last 650 million years and *POOF* a few more new species into existence? What about the mass extinctions at the end of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods? What about the empirically observed evidence for subsequent radiations of new species after the extinction events?

You guys are experts at beating your gums and screaming how evolution is WRONG WRONG WRONG! I want you to tell me what's RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT then. I'd like a timeline and some mechanisms that explain the patterns of life for the last 650 MY.

Oh, and while you're at it could you please give the timeline and mechanisms the Designer used for designing plant life.

Hey, if your Magic Big Guy did the fauna over the last 650 MY he must have done the flora too, right?

Tell me about the design of the earliest algal mats, and bryophytes, lycopods, and fern. Tell me about the design of gymnosperms and angiosperms. Tell me when the first deciduous tree was designed, and the first conifer.

I'd like one of geniuses to give to me a quick history of life from then to the present. Let's start with the fossil record. Anyone want to offer an explanation for the spatial and temporal patterns of the fossils that we empirically observe?

Did the magic Designer come by every few centuries over the last 650 million years and *POOF* a few more new species into existence?

Evolutionists literally believe everything around them, the whole world, spontaneously arose from nothing. They mandate this scientifically absurd claim for a variety of religious reasons. And when you point out these flaws in their reasoning, they give you every fallacious argument and mockery they can think of. They won't acknowledge any problem at all, and then demand you to solve their problem, as if they were in any kind of a position to reason rationally. This is right out of Monte Python.

Well, will you now stop assuming that all the scientists you quote are "evolutionists" by this idiosyncratic definition? Because the vast majority of scientists I know have no particular views on a Prime Mover, and do not think that science can address that issue (I view that I share).

Many are actually theists, in fact.

You have erected a straw man, and are somewhat dishonestly (because you must know this) attempting to discredit all of science by attacking it.

They mandate this scientifically absurd claim for a variety of religious reasons.

What possible religious reason could account for my confident belief that Cornelius Hunter arrived on this planet as the consequence of a chance meeting between a particular spermatozoon and a particular ovum?

Evolutionists literally believe everything around them, the whole world, spontaneously arose from nothing. They mandate this scientifically absurd claim for a variety of religious reasons. And when you point out these flaws in their reasoning, they give you every fallacious argument and mockery they can think of. They won't acknowledge any problem at all, and then demand you to solve their problem, as if they were in any kind of a position to reason rationally. This is right out of Monte Python.

That's lots of verbose effluvia there CH, but you completely forgot to answer the question.

Anyone else want to try giving an explanation for the last 650 MY of the fossil record?

The physics of going viral: Researchers measure the rate of DNA transfer from viruses to bacteria - June 27, 2012 Excerpt: previous work has shown that the genetic material (in a bacteriophage virus) is under more pressure within its protein shell than champagne experiences in a corked bottle. After all, as Phillips says, "There are 16 microns [16,000 nanometers] of DNA in a tiny 50-nanometer-sized shell. It's like taking 500 meters of cable from the Golden Gate Bridge and putting it in the back of a FedEx truck." Phillips's group wanted to find out whether that pressure plays a dominant role in transferring the DNA. Instead, he says, "What we discovered is that the thing that mattered most was not the pressure in the bacteriophage, but how much DNA was in the bacterial cell.",,, The mean ejection time was about five minutes, though that time varied considerably.This was markedly different from what the group had seen previously when they ran a similar experiment in a test tube. In that earlier setup, they had essentially tricked the bacteriophages into ejecting their DNA into solution—a task that the phages completed in less than 10 seconds.But Phillips says, "What was true in the test tube is not true in the cell." E. coli cells contain roughly 3 million proteins within a box that is roughly one micron (1,000 nanometers) on each side. Less than 10 nanometers separate each protein from its neighbors. "There's no room for anything else," Phillips says. "These cells are really crowded."http://phys.org/news/2012-06-physics-viral-dna-viruses-bacteria.html

Clockwork That Drives Powerful Virus Nanomotor DiscoveredExcerpt: Because of the motor's strength--to scale, twice that of an automobile--the new findings could inspire engineers designing sophisticated nanomachines.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229200748.htm

"Tell me about the design of the earliest algal mats, and bryophytes, lycopods, and fern. Tell me about the design of gymnosperms and angiosperms. Tell me when the first deciduous tree was designed, and the first conifer."

You tell us (in non-metaphysical and non overly conjectural terms) the very real origination and continuation of the laws of chemistry and physics. Oh, and matter, space and time.

Then, DEMONSTRATE, how all of these phenomena combined naturally to, (without intelligent input and despite the vast vast vast array of complicating cross reactions, discontinuities, contrary associations, lack of sympathetic selection variables, abundance of frustration conditions, etc etc etc.)proceed in the production of the humongous number of biochemical pathway lineages that comprise even the "simplest" of living organisms, let alone entire ecosystems that real science works at identifying and describing. And all within an entirely insufficient time scale for the alleged evolutionary mechanisms to accomplish such.

bpragmatic: You tell us (in non-metaphysical and non overly conjectural terms) the very real origination and continuation of the laws of chemistry and physics. Oh, and matter, space and time.

bpragmatic, you do not seem to understand how science works. It does not purport to give a final answer to every question. Scientific theories have always been of limited scope. Newton's theory of gravity explains how gravity works: it's a force between two point objects proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It does not explain the origin of gravity. That does not make Newton's theory deficient. In fact, it's an excellent theory.

So your rhetorical question "but where does matter come from?" is not very impressive. We know some partial answers to that question (see, e.g., nucleosynthesis), and even these partial answers are infinitely more informative than the tired "God created it."

"Tell me about the design of the earliest algal mats, and bryophytes, lycopods, and fern. Tell me about the design of gymnosperms and angiosperms. Tell me when the first deciduous tree was designed, and the first conifer."

You tell us (in non-metaphysical and non overly conjectural terms) the very real origination and continuation of the laws of chemistry and physics. Oh, and matter, space and time.

OK, that makes three Creationists who have ignored the questions.

Anyone else want to try giving an explanation for the last 650 MY of the fossil record?

Now, do you have your explanation for the last 650 MY of the fossil record yet?

Well Thorton since this is supposedly about the scientific evidence let's let the evidence speak for itself instead of us imposing any apriori answers onto the evidence, shall we?

The abrupt appearance of biological forms.Excerpt: "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."2R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pages 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).

But this is not the only such "explosion" in the fossil record. Paleontologists have observed a fish explosion, a plant explosion, a bird explosion, and even a mammal explosion. Abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity seem to be the rule, not the exception, for the fossil record. Transitions plausibly documented by fossils seem to be the rare exception.

As leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, "When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."3Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 189 (Basic Books, 2001).

This phenomenon exists not only at the species level but also at the level of higher taxa, as one zoology textbook discusses:

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group."4C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, page 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).

Rather than acknowledging the general pattern of explosions in the fossil record, PBS focuses on the few occasions where there are possible transitional forms.http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide13.html

Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern of the fossil record for the last 650 my, and as is well known,,,

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."David Kitts - Paleontologist

"The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" –Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard

,,, Thus why do you get angry at others and issue ad hominems when the evidence you asked for is presented to you? It's not my fault that the fossil evidence for the past 650 my doesn't conform to your 'desired' atheistic/materialistic conclusion! Get mad at the evidence not at us!

"Scientific theories have always been of limited scope. Newton's theory of gravity explains how gravity works: it's a force between two point objects proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It does not explain the origin of gravity. That does not make Newton's theory deficient. In fact, it's an excellent theory."

But ToE do not have a limited scope. It demand I have to believe that all life come from a bacterial like UCLA by RM+NS. And if I withold temporary assent I would be perverse as I withold temporary assent to Newton´s gravity theory.

Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern of the fossil record for the last 650 my, and as is well known

No I didn't batspit77. I asked for the Intelligent Design Creation explanation for the observed patterns.

,,, Thus why do you get angry at others and issue ad hominems when the evidence you asked for is presented to you?

You never present any evidence or discussion. You blindly respond to key words by C&Ping tons of OT information or worthless Creationist drivel. It's both rude and disruptive, but you don't care. You're like an idiot savant, but without the savant part.

That is the problem what i have with IDers. If you ask them a qeastion about something. They say but evolution can not explain it either. You can see that also a lot of ID sites 90% of the time they are bashing evolution because they do not really have any evidence to back up there claim. If I go to site about evolution, they will not talk at all about ID.(except some atheist sites)They talk Only about the evidence of evolution. There is 150 years of research in evolution. If you have a question about evolution go to talk origins. They explain a lot of things very well.

The only thing IDers say it is to complex to involve or it can not happen by chance. With those things you can not disprove evolution. Thats why most mainstream scientist see ID as pseudoscience.

We can not observe the place were this creater come from. So how can we proof that a place like that exist. Do IDers believe in some kind of multiverse. Were the bieing of that one universe create the beings of the other universe. I do not except the multiverse theorie because there is to little evidence to back it up. Even most IDers do not except multiverse theorie.

A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html

How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"? - Casey Luskin - October 2011 Excerpt: ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS's definitions of "theory." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/how_do_we_know_intelligent_des051841.html

"Do IDers believe in some kind of multiverse. Were the bieing of that one universe create the beings of the other universe. I do not except the multiverse theorie because there is to little evidence to back it up. Even most IDers do not except multiverse theorie."

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

Materialism/Naturalism is simply 'not even wrong' in being able to account for why the laws of physics exist! Whereas Theists, particularly Christian Theists, 'expected' to find such 'extreme transcendent order' from their apriori epistemological basis:

Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)http://vimeo.com/32145998

Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced articlehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

Moreover, the Theist, thanks to breakthroughs in modern science, can actually empirically verify the fact that God resides in the 'highest dimension' of eternity and has no beginning or end and is thus the sufficient cause for why the physical/mathematical laws exist,,,

continued on this site,,

Only God can provide a coherent basis for physical law; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N3rreCPgeJUrQRPt3WNoeYTdHPcVEUOHDBDXrDlWgzU/edit

but all that evidence is always the same. It is to complex to involve thats why a intelligent designer did it. Every ID paper say the same thing. They try to delude people with big words that it is science, but they always come back to Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity.

You need to ask yourself why does mainstream scientist see ID as Pseudoscience.

How do ID explain stupid design. Not everything in this universe is so wel desiged ?

Why did it take him so long look what we humans did it just 10000 years. He could created far better beings in 13.7 billion years.

When does this intelligent designer creates things ?Did he only created the big bang ?

"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 debate available on the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://theresurgence.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html

The history and overturning of geocentrism probably best reflects what Lakatos thought was the most effeective demarcation criteria in science. i.e. Lakatos thought the most sure mark of a degenerating science program, i.e. a pseudo-science, was that a pseudoscience in a state of degeneration will start to add additional theories, on top of the original theory, solely in order to accommodate facts that are discordant with what the original theory proposed:

Notes:

Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Lakatoshttp://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx

For examples of additional theories that have been added to neo-Darwinism to 'explain away' discordant facts please see:

Darwin’s Predictionshttp://www.darwinspredictions.com/

A few example are here as well:

Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsificationhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

and let's not forget,

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

The words in the top paragraph are 'my own words', while the notes I provided you are why I think Lakatos would view geocentrism as a crystal clear example for what he considered the best demarcation criteria for separating science from pseudo-science. To see the process in action for Darwinism check out Dr. Hunter's new post on RNA's.

To all who have responded to a post made by bpragmatic somewhere above:

Give real science the funding and time the false science of darwinian evolution has had over the decades, and I am pretty confident real science would be able to develop convincing and demonstrable hypothesis as to how intelligent capabilities could develop the requirements necessary for the "living" organisms and ecosystems that are empirically observable to intelligent agents in this day.

In fact, the evolutionary "scientists" who are so arduously attempting to demonstrate that naturalistic "evolutionary" processes are capable of achieving such results are unwittingly demostrating the level of intelligent interference necessary to achieve even menial results towards what mere figments of the the requirements are comprised of.

Expert rhetorical perveyors of triviality, such as LIddle, should resign themselves to switching careers to fiction novel writing and spare the individuals who are seriously interested in this topic the diversionary tactics that unbridled and undisciplined imagination and irrelevant arguments will take them.

Give real science the funding and time the false science of darwinian evolution has had over the decades, and I am pretty confident real science would be able to develop convincing and demonstrable hypothesis as to how intelligent capabilities could develop the requirements necessary for the "living" organisms and ecosystems that are empirically observable to intelligent agents in this day.

What is your definition of "real science", and why do the scientific fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. that support ToE not qualify?

In fact, the evolutionary "scientists" who are so arduously attempting to demonstrate that naturalistic "evolutionary" processes are capable of achieving such results are unwittingly demostrating the level of intelligent interference necessary to achieve even menial results towards what mere figments of the the requirements are comprised of.

Another wonderful example of what passes for "logic" with IDCers: "Science experiments are intelligently designed, so that means whatever phenomenon they're investigating must be intelligently designed too!"

And IDCers still wonder why they get laughed at.

Expert rhetorical perveyors of triviality, such as LIddle, should resign themselves to switching careers to fiction novel writing and spare the individuals who are seriously interested in this topic the diversionary tactics that unbridled and undisciplined imagination and irrelevant arguments will take them

Alternately, the woefully scientifically illiterate IDCers could get a science education before embarrassing themselves by spouting off on topics they don't understand. But they won't. It's way easier to stay ignorant and remain a Creationist.

"and why do the scientific fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. that support ToE not qualify?"

Scientific fields support ID.

"Another wonderful example of what passes for "logic" with IDCers: "Science experiments are intelligently designed, so that means whatever phenomenon they're investigating must be intelligently designed too!""

What I had in mind behind the comment was OOL research.Often times many intelligent, very well educated and heavily funded individuals using state of the art facilites and equipment to strategically manipulate and guide reactions to attempt to reach known outcomes. Huge degree of illegitimate investigator intereference, yet trivial results.

"Alternately, the woefully scientifically illiterate IDCers could get a science education before embarrassing themselves by spouting off on topics they don't understand. But they won't. It's way easier to stay ignorant and remain a Creationist."

Many ID advocates are highly educated in science and have an excellent grasp on the relevant topics. And many times they embarrass evolutionists when debating or dialoguing over the issues with them.

Also, my impression of your participation, Thornton, is that you rely heavily on riducule, appeals to authority, strawman arguments etc etc etc to try and get the "upper hand" instead of addressing the issues as they are discussed.